PASADENA
HERIT A GE 651 SOUTH ST. JOHN AVENUE P 626.441.6333 F 626.441.2917 PRESERVATION | ADVOCACY | EDUCATION PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91105-2913 WWW.PASADENAHERITAGE.ORG January 20, 2021
Mayor Victor Gordo and Pasadena City Council
2022 JAN 20 PM 5:12 RECEIVED
Attn: Mark Jomsky
Pasadena City Hall
100 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Central Park Apartments SCEA
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Pasadena Heritage has reviewed the SCEA for the Central Park Apartments, and we previously submitted comments on the draft SCEA. We have met with ARG and Goldrich Kest, and they have presented their design as it evolved to our Advocacy Committee and positively responded to our comments and suggestions.
We believe that the SCEA document has studied the impacts of this project adequately and that mitigation is included to address identified impacts as well as responds to a number of comments and concers. We find the SCEA is acceptable, provides adequate information for decision-making purposes, and addresses environmental impacts appropriately. We do have some further comments on some particular items, outlined below.
Cultural Resources
The proposed design is respectful of the context, though we believe it needs further refinement in some areas. This parcel is within the Old Pasadena National Register Historic District. Because of this, it is required that the Design Commission make the finding that the project is in keeping with the Secretary of the interior's Standards. The project has improved considerably since first proposed, and input from the community is reflected in changes made and led to better design as currently proposed. Then project will inevitably change more as it moves through the Design Commission process.
One element of the design that is absolutely critical is the courtyard. This open space in the middle of the site is a profound change from earlier proposals and provides an open area for all residents while also creating a visual buffer between the new building and its two historic neighbors. Views of the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments, though reduced from some angles, still provide visibility of these historic buildings and enjoyment of them to a large extent. It is essential that this space remain even as the design may change.
Item 13
1/24/2022
Re: Central Park Apartments | Page 2
Noise (Vibrations)
One major concern Pasadena Heritage has expressed is the risk of vibrations doing harm to the Castle Green or Green Hotel Apartments. Through this environmental process, concer for adjacent historic properties has been considered and addressed with proper mitigation and vibration monitoring. We find the mitigation measures to be thoughtful and appropriate.
Traffic
Additional traffic will impact Dayton Street in particular, and could disrupt the connection to Central Park for residents who use the park. Though TOD parking standards are being used, and parking has been reduced from earlier versions of the project, we strongly encourage reducing parking further if at all possible, using reductions allowed by the City's own Affordable Housing Concession Menu, to reduce car trips to and from the building. This parcel is one of the best in the City in terms of transit access, being just steps away from Del Mar Station, multiple bus lines, and the new proposed BRT line. Reducing parking will also lead to less excavation, reducing the intensity and duration of vibration impacts on adjacent historic buildings.
Even if parking is reduced, there needs to be a safe pedestrian connection at the Fair Oaks Avenue and Dayton Street intersection. The Central Park playground is located just south of this proposed project, and with added traffic, the City of Pasadena should be ensuring the safety of the children and families that use it. The nearby Fire Station adds complexity to this section of Fair Oaks, and the increased residential uses west of Fair Oaks will generate trips to and from the Park. As mitigation measures, we encourage parking restrictions near the intersection and consideration of a raised crosswalk, which forces drivers to slow down as they turn onto Dayton Street from Fair Oaks Avenue. This device can also improve accessibility and safety for pedestrians, especially for children, parents pushing a stroller, or mobility impaired seniors.
We thank you for hearing our comments and thoughts on this prominent project. We will continue to stay engaged through the Design Commission review phase.
Sincerely,
And soli:
Susan N. Mossman Andrew Salimian
Executive Director Preservation Director
CC: David Reyes, Director of Planning
Kevin Johnson, Principal Planner
Katie Horak, Principal, ARG
RECEIVED
LABC
2022 JAN 21 AMII: 20
Los Angeles
Business Council
January 21, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo and Honorable Members of the City Council Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: Support of Central Park Apartments Project
Dear Mayor Gordo and Honorable Members of the City Council:
The Los Angeles Business Council (LABC), which represents over 500 business and civic leaders from all industry sectors across the Los Angeles region, strongly supports the Central Park Apartments proposed by Goldrich Kest. The project fits important local and regional public policy goals by creating new housing while promoting public transit. We urge the City Council to approve the project's Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA).
The LABC is dedicated to creating a stronger, more equitable Los Angeles, and we see housing and transportation as two integral paths to get there. As a transit-oriented, density-bonus development, Central Park Apartments is the kind of urban infill development our region desperately needs.
Producing adequate levels of market-rate and affordable housing in Southern California is key to bridging the housing affordability gap and to addressing the chronic shortage of housing, particularly near employment centers. The project brings 84 much-needed apartment homes, with 20 percent of the project's base density reserved for on-site affordable units, plus four work/live units. The current surface parking lot is within walking distance to nearby Metro stations as well as Central Park and Old Pasadena, which will promote walking, biking and the use of public transportation.
As advocates for bold, progressive housing, transportation, job development and sustainability policies, the LABC supported SB 375 and the creation of the SCEA-the CEQA review process that Central Park Apartments is now undergoing. The law was created to help stimulate the production of housing that meets the exact characteristics that Central Park Apartments is embracing. We appreciate the City's careful analysis and preparation of the SCEA and see the finding of no unmitigated environmental impacts as an additional reason this project should move forward swiftly.
01/24/2022
Item 13
The LABC believes in bold public policy that drives housing and related economic growth. For this reason, we support Central Park Apartments and the investment and opportunity it will create. We hope you will see to completion this development that so seamlessly fits the criteria of SB 375 and builds exactly what our region needs.
Sincerely,
Many leslie
Mary Leslie
President
LABC
Cc: Cynthia Kurtz, Interim City Manager
David Reyes, Director, Planning & Community Development Department Iraheta, Alba
From: David Woodbury <
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:16 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
CC: David Woodbury
Subject: Comments for Council Meeting on 86S. Fair Oaks Ave proposal.
Attachments: Letter (Jan 20,2022) in Opposition to Central Park Apartments project, 86 S. Fair Oaks Development.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more... https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Dear Kevin Johnson or whom it may concern,
Please find attached my public comments to be included in public comments section of the Council Meeting on Monday, January 24, 2022, regarding the proposed 86S. Fair Oaks Ave Apartments.
Let me know if I can assist in any other way,
Best wishes,
David Woodbury
Pasadena Resident
01/24/2022
Item 13
Concerning Proposed Development on the Historically Registered Block of The Castle/Hotel Green - How is it that one of Pasadena's top three architectural treasures, The Castle Green and The Hotel Green, designated on The National Registry of Historic Places - the whole city block, from Fair Oaks to Raymond Avenues, Dayton to Green Streets - is yet again being threatened by the developer Goldrich & Kest, who plans to build an eleven-level structure, rising seven stories above ground right in front of Pasadena's iconic Victorian gem, and has the hubris to call their development Colonel Green's "1903 Vision?"
This view from Fair Oaks of The Castle Green...
This current 124-year-old-view from Fair Oaks of The Castle Green with its iconic turrets will be blocked out 1 ...will be replaces with something like this:
...Glass, steal and sprayed-on stucco.
And an iconic "postcard" view of Pasadena for 124 years gone in the blink of an eye, for another towering high-rise mixed-use development.
When Goldrich & Kest claim to be completing Colonel Green's 1903 vision, take a closer look at the vision of Colonel Green's from the building they will be shrouding from view. 2 This kind of detail, shown here on the western turret of Castle Green, was Colonel Green's Vision! Look at the surface work, the varied window framing, the wrought iron...
The current 124-year-old view of Castle Green and its iconic turrets seen from Fair Oaks and the western half of Old Pasadena will be entirely obscured by this towering new proposed development, and several century old trees cut down.
A 124-year-old "postcard" view soon to be shrouded by a wall of glass and sprayed-on stucco, four floors of subterranean parking, on an eleven-level mixed use development, seven stories above ground level right in front of this Victorian architectural gem, our Pasadena heritage, if G & K have their way.
And what's to happen to the 100-year-old trees?
And what are the seismic implications - something to be particularly mindful of, given the status of the beloved Pasadena Public Library - of digging a four-story deep hole a few hundred feet from our iconic treasures? The Hotel Green has already had scaffolding up for several years because of a crumbling façade, which Goldrich & Kest, the current owner (of The Hotel Green, not the Castle Green), has done little more than build a scaffolding to remediate; and now several years of scaffolding, they have done little more than covered the façade with mess, rather than repair it supposedly. If they want to carry forward Colonel Green's 1903 Vision, start by taking care of the actual Colonel Green 1903 building they already own, which has been entirely gutted by them of most original detail, as they have shown little custodial integrity to its interior, or exterior - two of the domes are missing on their roof (replace them!), the detailed façade has crumbled all over their property and they do little or nothing to preserve or restore any of it. And now they want to dig a four-story deep hole and slap up a new eleven-level building a hundred feet from a historically registered building already in their possession that's literally crumbling.
And why is this project being rushed through City Hall, during Covid, when public comment, if the public even knows to comment, and opposition is being allocated to email and zoom calls? And why the accelerated review process, with the SCEA omitting or minimizing many CEQA areas of review? Why is Goldrich & Kest in such a hurry to jump the line to build this new towering high-rise development, putting their neighbors in permanent shade, when they fail to adequately maintain their current holdings in Colonel Green's true vision - realized in brick and mortar- in 1903, The (now crumbling, under their watch) Hotel Green.
Do the good people of Pasadena even know this is happening? That an iconic building, used in murals and postcards for well over a century to represent Pasadena - with its towering castle turrets a symbol of our city - is soon to be dominated from view from the western half of Old Pasadena and Fair Oaks - the main artery into and out of Old Pasadena - by an eleven-level, seven story, towering apartment block, to be built on a historically registered site, whose historic designation extends beneath the actual footprint of this development, from Fair Oaks to Raymond, from Green to Dayton. How is that even legal?
I whole-heartly stand in opposition to this development, David Woodbury
Third Generation Pasadena Resident and Local Historian
The Hotel Green, c. 1903
*Supplemental photos, taken in May, 2021 and Jan, 2022 of neglect by developer Godrich & Kest of the historically designated Hotel Green's 1903 building on Fair Oaks, which they own and manage ... crumbling facades, lost historic detail, missing historic domes unreplanced, near-abondoned scaffolding only recently removed after being under citation from the Pasadena Fire Department...
Meanwhile, they press on with their new development to realize Colonel Green's "1903 Vision!" 5 RECEIVED
Claire W. Bogaard
581 Garden Lane 2022 JAN 21 PM 4: 45
Pasadena, California 91105
CITI CLERK
21 January 2022
The Honorable Victor Gordo
and Members of the Pasadena City Council
Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
RE: Central Park Apartments Project
Agenda Item 13, January 24, 2022
Dear Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to urge you and the City Council to approve the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for this project, as recommended by the City Staff. After review, I believe that the SCEA Report includes the necessary information about the Central Park Apartments Project. The report carefully studies and clearly presents the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation proposals.
Over many years, I have worked in cooperation with the Castle Green and reviewed numerous proposals for the Castle Green/Green Hotel block. There have been many community meetings and many suggestions and proposals for the use of the parking area. The project before you - the Central Park Apartments - is a far better project than prior proposals and I hope that it will continue through the City's design process and be constructed.
In many ways, the current project completes the original 1903 Vision for the block and transforms the surface parking lot into a mixed-use development which will fit well in Old Pasadena. The project, as now designed, complements the Green Hotel and the Castle Green.
It responds to the local context and to the historic setting. It also offers an improved 'open space' in the middle of the block to be used by the nearby residents.
Thank you for this opportunity to urge the City Council to affirm that the environmental studies are complete and to support the project moving forward to Design Review.
Sincerely,
Lain w. Baguard
Claire W. Bogaard
ITEM 13
1/24/2022
Iraheta, Alba
From: n>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:18 AM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cc: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: FW: Goldrich & Kest Central Park Apt Pro - Comments Submission of 1/24/22 Council Meeting
Attachments: HG-G+K-Proj-Comments-1-23-22.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Copying with attachment. Hard copy will also be mailed.
From: Henry Golas <
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 11:12 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Goldrich & Kest Central Park Apt Pro - Comments Submission of 1/24/22 Council Meeting Hi Mayor & Kevin -
Attached are my formal comments for the Goldrich & Kest Central Park Apartments Project that is being considered tomorrow, 1/24/22.
Kevin - On my blue card, snail mail notice it says the meeting starts at 5pm, yet on the website, it says 4:30pm? ma murai code s 1r.o1. usus needda lor approval
Design Review public hearing for consideration of the Project has not been set at this time, aditional public notices will be distributed once the hearing is scheduler THE HEARING IS SCHEDULED ON:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 Council will hold a public hearing to receive Time: 5:00 PM testimonies, oral and written, and make a Place: This electronic meeting may be viewed with captions and the opportunity to submit determination on the SCEA. public comment via the following websites: www.pasadenamedia ora or www.citvcfpasadena nev/commissions/agendas
nation. All interacter noreone may cuhmit romachandans to Mom spondence cituntnasadena net prior to the start of the meeting. Memhers of the cublic NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will hold a public hearing to receive testimonies, oral and written. and make a determination on the SCEA.
THE HEARING IS SCHEDULED ON:
Date: Monday. January 24, 2022
Time: 4:30 PM
Place: This electronic meeting may be viewed with captions and the opportunity to submit public comment via the following websites: www.pasadenamedia.org or www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/agendas Can you let me know which one is accurate?
1 01/24/2022
Item 13
On a minor point, I suppose, I found errors in some of the docs...one easiest to illustrate - one of the historic reports seems to imply that none of the original Hotel Green East building survives - though the first-floor corner does, at the corner of Green and Raymond - as part of the old Stats.
In addition to exterior details, it still has some of the interiors - restaurant arches and capitals and the front door which matches ours. (see pix below for ref) Maybe it should be looked at and considered for inclusion in the city's heritage assets if not already?
The devil is in the details as the cliché goes, so these things tend to erode my confidence in the quality of the documentation.
Will try to dial into tomorrow's meeting if I know the correct time.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Henry Golas
Death Valley Conservancy
The Death Valley Conservancy (DVC) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that supports worthy projects which enhance research, education, historic preservation and the visitor experience within Death Valley National Park and the surrounding communities - "Continuing the Adventures for Present and Future Generations!" _ "Genius Loci"
Visit us on the web at: www.dvconservancv.org
Online Donations via PayPal can be made at:
PayPal™
Donate Now
2 RECEIVED
2022 JAN 24 AM 9: 09
CHI GiLI HENRY GOLAS
Gil ur it January 23, 2021
Re: Comments - GeK Central Park Apartments Project
The Hotel Green Block remains one of Pasadena's rarest historic gems and I see nothing in the October 2020 "Historic Resources Technical Report" documentation being presented that adequately addresses those issues and concerns without seeming bias or a predestined outcome in favor of the developer's wants. (Said report marked, "Confidential Draft For Internal Review Only" ...which begs the question, when will there be a final approved version - will it be provided before the Council formally acts on this?)
For example, it seems to proffer as fact vs opinion, which much of it is, that the subject parcel now being mostly parking and not having much, if any, of its prior landscape values or elements, yet arguably it does (see attached) and the report seems to ignore that areas like the tropical pool setting were removed and lost under the applicant's ownership as were significant historic architectural details of their current building along Green St. have similarly been lost during their watch. One example of many.
I hope that members of the city council have pursued due diligence and paid a site visit recently along with the reference materials to see for themselves before they take such an important vote.
In general, all my prior concerns remain, especially: its grossly out of mass and scale for the site, it poses an unknown threat to the Castle Green's 1898 structure during excavation, and adding units and increased traffic for ingress and egress along Dayton which already is sorely overburdened - often impassable bidirectionally - with even minor events or medium visitation days to Central Park, plus kids and families crossing the street there. It's still not clear why that entrance/exit for the new parking isn't on Fair Oaks?
Please place this project back where it belongs for more considered and proper community vetting and design considerations commensurate with its importance and stature to the city and pcople of Pasadena - present and future generations.
If such a significant Pasadena heritage-defining historic block, with National Register structures also designated as Pasadena Historical Monuments in the Old Pasadena District and adjacent to Central Park doesn't require more thorough, proper vetting and design review... what does? Sincerely,
Henry J. Golas
Pasadena Mayor Gordo, City Council &
Sr. Planner Kevin Johnson
City Hall
P.O. Box 7115
Pasadena, CA 91109-7215
January 23, 2022 - HG Comments - Images
134 06 37 N 116 0905 W 1,1651
That section still evokes some of the values and design of its heritage and it could arguably be incorporated and restored into a properly massed and scaled design. Col Green's actual design did that... it featured lush gardens in the middle. The current submitted design is the antithesis.
Here's how that pool area (center oval in Google Earth picture top of page) looked before Goldrich & Kest purchased the property and remove it and some of the surrounding landscaping over the years.
Hotel Green
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
Another view of their gardens in those areas before it was purchased by G&K.
HOTRI, GREEN, PASADENA
Since G&K offers their current design as completing Col Green's original "vision"- For ease of reference: Here is one of Col Green's actual visions to complete his resort. Note the scale of the "new" Fair Oaks wing, front left. It even has a roof garden.
CENTER BARDENL
MOTEL GREEN
Another view and iteration showing an open colonnade and interior gardens.
A similar iteration, but from Central Park.
The project in its current iteration leaves unmet the challenges, opportunity and duty to design something amazing, beautiful, proportionate, and aesthetically compatible to the place in this historic block it will occupy with these surviving significant structures, park, district and community it seeks to join and become part of.
GOL DRICH-KEST
January 24, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo and Members of the City Council
Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Ave. Gili vita
Pasadena, CA 91101 2022 JAN 24 AM 9:09 RECEIVED
CITY CLEAN
RE: Central Park Apartments Project
Agenda Item 13, January 24, 2022
Honorable Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Central Park Apartments team, I want to thank you for considering the environmental documents for Central Park Apartments project. We are excited about a project that activates the corner of Fair Oaks and Dayton with a zoning compliant transit-oriented development of 84 new housing units - including 20 percent of base density reserved for affordable units - and neighborhood-serving retail, reflecting priorities shared with us by a diverse group of residents, community leaders, and business stakeholders. We believe this is a great project that will provide significant benefits to the City, and the community. We also are pleased to know that you should be receiving letters of support to that effect from prominent members of the community.
The matter before the City Council tonight, however, is only the certification of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) that was completed for the project. This type of CEQA review was born out of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), a California law created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by integrating transportation and land use planning. A SCEA is used for projects that contain at least 50 percent residential use, provide a minimum density of 20 units per acre, are located within half a mile of a major transit stop, and are consistent with all general plan and zoning requirements. Central Park Apartments meets all of these criteria, thus complying with state law while also fulfilling the City's need for more transit-oriented housing In addition, because a SCEA may only be utilized for projects that are consistent with the region's adopted sustainable communities strategy, a SEA is not required to discuss growth inducing impacts, project-specific or cumulative impacts on global warming or the regional transportation network, or analyze offsite alternatives or a reduced residential density alternative regarding the effects of car and light-duty truck trips. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21155.2(c)(2); 21159.28(a), (b).) Under SB375, a SCEA is entitled to streamlined review. Specifically, state law provides that "[t]he legislative body of the lead agency shall conduct the public hearing or a planning commission may conduct the public hearing if local ordinances allow a direct appeal of approval of a document prepared pursuant to this division to the legislative body subject to a fee not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500)." (Pub. Res. Code 5§ 21155.2(b)(6).) Since this project is a transit priority project with no discretionary entitlements other than design review, neither the Planning Commission or any other City Commission has any jurisdiction under the Municipal Code over the approval of this SCEA; nor, is there 01/24/2022
Item 13
GOLDRICH--KEST
any established appeal procedures for any such review of the environmental documents for this kind of project that requires no other discretionary approval other than design review.
The City Council is thus the only authorized body for conducting the public hearing on this SCEA and making the required findings for it. As explained in your Staff Report, all of the findings can be made based upon the substantial evidence set-forth in the SCEA.
We, therefore, agree with the Staff's recommendation for certification of the SCEA, and ask that the City Council approve the SCEA accordingly. We strongly disagree, however, with the alternative recommendation involving any review by any other body. SB375 was designed to streamline the review process, not lengthen it unnecessarily, and there is simply no legal basis under the City's code providing for such advisory environmental review of this kind of project.
Last, in any event, this will not be the end of the City's review process, as the project will be reviewed by the Design Commission for design review, where we will work with the Commission and community to present the best project possible.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Enly Lag
Emily Taylor
Director of Development, Goldrich Kest
Cc: David Reyes, Director of Planning & Community Development
ABUNDANT I
HOUSING Li
HOUSING FORALL
January 21, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo
[email protected]
City Manager Steve Mermell Gili crite
[email protected]
2022. JAN 24 AM 9: 14 RECEIVED
David Reyes, Director, Planning and Community Development Department [email protected]
Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Gordo, City Manager Mermell, Director Reyes and Mr. Johnson, We are writing to you in support of the proposed mixed-use 84-unit project with 16 affordable units, 4 live-work units and 6,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving restaurants and retail at 86 S. Fair Oaks Ave. We urge the Pasadena City Council Hearing to adopt the findings of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment and approve the density bonus.
The greater Los Angeles region is facing a severe housing shortage, particularly affordable housing. By creating new housing in this neighborhood, it will help to reduce issues of gentrification and displacement in other parts of the region. Abundant Housing LA believes that these housing challenges This project is close to numerous transit options. It is 1000 feet from the Del Mar Metro light rail station and has a bus stop at its corner and around the block. Many desirable neighborhood amenities are in easy walking and bicycling distance, including three grocery stores within a mile, a park across the street, and numerous restaurants and stores.
It is great to see the developer using Affordable Housing Incentives to bring badly needed affordable and supportive housing to the city. This project is a good project for Pasadena and for the region. Again, we urge the city to adopt the findings of the environmental assessment and approve the density bonus.
Best Regards,
Leanora Camner Taine Del Rio Tami Kagan Abramus
Leonora Camner Jaime Del Rio Tami Kagan-Abrams
AHLA Executive Director AHLA Field Organizer AHLA Project Director 01/24/2022
Item 13
Iraheta, Alba
From: Nina Chomsky <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:30 AM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: City Council Meeting 1/24/2022; Agenda Item 13 - Central Park Apartments SCEA CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...
Nina Chomsky
Pasadena, CA
Re: City Council Meeting 1/24/2022; Agenda Item 13 - Central Park Apartments SCEA Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers:
I submitted a public comment letter dated May 6, 2021, in my individual capacity, in response to the Draft SCEA. This letter is included in the Final SCEA. I continue to think that this revised original "pipeline" Project is not SCEA eligible, but I am most concerned now about the following important public process issue.
The Revised Project Should Receive Planning Commission Review.
It appears that part of the plan to rush, that is "streamline" ", the revised Project through the Pasadena public process, and thereby avoid full and adequate public process and review, is to "skip" Planning Commission review and recommendations prior to CEQA/SCEA and entitlement review by the City Council.
I urge you to send the Final SCEA to the Planning Commission for full technical and Land Use (including Historic Resources) public review, comment and recommendations to the Council at a noticed Public Hearing with full and adequate Notice to all stakeholders, particularly the Castle Green interested parties.
Skipping and avoiding Planning Commission review is not acceptable and violates Pasadena rules and customs and is a Land Use and Planning CEQA inadequacy. The public record is deficient without Planning Commission review and recommendations, and your decision will benefit from such informed review and commendations.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Nina Chomsky
01/24/2022
1 Item 13
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, INC.
d/b/a, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
AAGLA
"Great Apartments Start Here!"
Daniel M. Yukelson
Executive Director
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 322
January 24, 2022
Mayor Victor Gordo and Members of the City Council
Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101 2022 JAN 24 PM 2: 33 RECEIVED RE: Support of Central Park Apartments Project
Dear Mayor Gordo and Members of the Pasadena City Council:
On behalf of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Association), we are writing to share our support of the Central Park Apartments project and urge the City Council to approve the project's Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA).
The Association is proud to be a long-time advocate on behalf of the rental housing industry in Southern California. Our non-profit association consists of over 10,000 members, including rental housing providers and real estate professionals, each of whom own or manage over 200,000 rental housing units.
We understand and are highly concerned about the urgent need for more rental housing throughout the region at an array of price points. The proposed Central Park Apartments will help meet Pasadena's tremendous and growing housing need by creating 84 new rental housing units of varying types and sizes, including 20% of base density reserved for on-site affordable units, as well as four live-work units. This project could not come at a more pivotal time given our region's growing housing crisis.
Central Park Apartments is being developed by Goldrich Kest, a property owner in Pasadena since 1971. At the Association, one of our goals is to increase professionalism among rental housing providers to ensure our members can deliver safe and affordable housing while realizing fair returns. Goldrich Kest is a perfect example and model in this regard, with a decades-long track record of providing safe and affordable homes. We have great confidence that Goldrich Kest will build and operate high-quality rental housing in the City of Pasadena.
Their Central Park Apartments proposal meets important public policy goals. It is a transit- oriented development located within walking distance of two Metro rail stations that feed the regional transportation network. The project embraces sustainable building design and energy efficient building systems - it is designed to earn LEED certification. Moreover, the project does not request 621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG 01/24/2022 Item 13
"Legislators cannot help tenants by destroying the incomes of those who provide much-needed rental housing." - Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register (April 2020) APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, INC.
d/b/a, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
AAGLA
"Great Apartments Start Here!"
any concessions from Pasadena's zoning or development standards.
The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles fully supports approval of the Central Park Apartments. Pasadena needs new rental housing, particularly along its significant transit corridors.
We encourage a "yes" vote on the SCEA to move this important project forward.
If you have any questions, please call me at (213)384-4131; Ext. 322.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Jukelson
Daniel M. Yukelson
(Approved, and Signed on My Behalf With
My Authorization)
Copy to David Reyes, Director of Planning & Community Development 621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG "Legislators cannot help tenants by destroying the incomes of those who provide much-needed rental housing." -Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register (April 2020)
RECEIVED
CBCM
Chatten-Brown, Carstens Brandt-HawleyN awpGroup
& Minteer LLP Chauvet House • PO, Box 1659K
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 preservationlawyers.com
www.cbcearthlaw.com 707.938.3900
310-798-2400
January 24, 2022
Victor M. Gordo, Mayor UIT ULLIVA 2022 JAN 24 PM 2: 33 RECEIVE aid members of the Pasadena City Council
Subject: Agenda for January 24, 2022, Item 13
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Central Park Apartments at 86S. Fair Oaks Avenue
Hon. Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Castle Green Homeowners Association, we object to approval of the SCEA as a basis for the City Council's consideration of the Central Park Apartments project proposed by Goldrich Kest.
Continuance Requested. We request that the Council's consideration of this complex SCEA agenda item be continued as a matter of fairness and due process. An inadequate public review period spanned the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend.
Non-working City links to the speaker cards required for the Council's virtual hearing have also negatively impacted public participation.
Further, the agenda item warrants revision and re-noticing. The published agenda describes items before this Council that are not yet ripe for approval:
(1) Adopt a resolution in Attachment A of the agenda report approving the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) (SCH No. 2021030197), adopting findings, and adopting the ... (MMRP); and
(2) Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Recorder.
The posted public notice for the Council hearing states that "Design Review is needed for approval of the Project." The notice does not say whether that approval will be considered by the City Council after review by the Design Commission, or whether that Commission will have Project approval authority. (Even if so, its final approval would be 01/24/2022
Item 13
City of Pasadena
January 24, 2022
subject to appeal to the Council.) But one or the other process must occur. The proposed Resolution directs staff "to file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the County of Los Angeles within five working days of final approval, as may be further modified by any conditions of approval imposed by the City Council." (Resolution at 55.) "Final approval of the Project" — and therefore final approval of the SCEA followed by the filing of the NOD — is not ready for consideration by the Council, as the pending Design Commission input may generate "modified conditions" from the current SCEA.
While the Council can now consider preliminary adequacy of the SCEA, as the City documents concede that the approval will not yet be final, objections to the adequacy of environmental review will remain open as a matter of law until the close of the final public hearing before the NOD. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177 (a).) For all these reasons, please re-notice and revise the agenda to omit any actions requiring recommendations from the Design Commission before final approval of the SCEA, feasible mitigation measures, the MMRP, and filing/posting of the NOD.
The Process is Inappropriate. We explained in our letter to Senior Planner Kevin Johnson in May 2021 that the streamlined SCEA process is inappropriate on many grounds. The City prepared and circulated an EIR for the Green Hotel Apartments proposed by the same applicant in 2014. We continue to urge that the City Council exercise its discretion to complete that EIR review process, as contemplated by the SCEA statute. (Public Resources Code, § 21155.2 (c).)
Regardless, the Project must still meet CEQA criteria and comply with City ordinances. The City Council needs the benefit of expert input from the Design Commission before considering approval of such a momentous project.
Because of the defective agenda and notice, and for all the reasons stated above, we will defer our further comment on the SCEA inadequacy.
Sincerely,
Douglar P. Conta
Douglas P. Carstens
[email protected]
Susan Brandt-Hawley
[email protected]
Mike Salazar, Architect, for the Castle Green Homeowners Association
RECEIVED
City of Pasadena Mayor & City Council 2022 JAN 24 PM 2:18 100 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101 WIT OLLIN
RE: Opposition to 86 S. Fair Oaks Ave. Central Park Apartments SCEA Review January 23, 2022
Dear Honorable Mayor Gordo and City Councilmembers:
I am writing to you today on behalf of the Castle Green Homeowners Association to ask that you outright Deny the certification of the SCEA review for 86S. Fair Oaks Avenue, or at very least continue this review to allow an adequate time for community review and input.
With only 2 weeks or so days notice (with the KING, Jr. national holiday in the middle) to review 1,500 pages of the final SCEA, compare it to previous 2021 version and to review the related 2015 EIR that this SCEA still appears to rely on, this is reason enough to at least continue this hearing, but hopefully the Council will not approve this SCEA process for this most sensitive site and impactful project.
Reasons exists to deny this project - both large and small - from moving forward under SCEA. Over the past 14 years, the community has been burdened with one bad attempt leading to another, from 2008's big 6-story box that incredibly filled the entire historic parcel, only to end up with this 7-story, 84-unit overbearing stand-alone structure that overpowers the historic buildings on this historic block.
As background info, in 2015 the Design Commission refused to certify the Final EIR for a 6-story, 64-unit project. Most community members and almost all residents of the adjacent Green Hotel Apartments and Castle Green spoke out against this flawed project and inadequate EIR. The Design Commissioners were not impressed by this project.
Then to most folks surprise, what resurfaced in 2017 was a larger version, a more impactful 87-unit, 7 story project, struggling with its design and impacts. It bulked up and presented a dominating presence with all the charm and appropriateness of a Public Storage building - contrary to established local and national historic preservation Standards and guidelines.
In a 2018 City Council review, this 'revived' project seemed to generate concern from the Council, mostly centering on historic preservation, traffic and aesthetic impacts, yet it relied on the same uncertified 64-unit EIR for cover, even though it was now 84 units and arguably taller. So the project seemed to go silent again.
Fast forward to 2021, and this new SCEA process was invoked, intending to streamline reviews and consideration of impacts. It appeared that the SCEA process largely allowed the Applicant and city staff to put aside the uncertified EIR and many inadequacies and most community concerns under the false pretense of 'progress,' when in fact the 2021 project mostly altered the exterior design - figuratively trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The 2021 project was overly 'tarted up' with design elements from all over Old Pasadena and some from the original Hotel Green buildings, yet failing to come up with a respectful and cohesive design language, misapplying the Old Pasadena standards.
Old Pasadena is protected by local and national preservation Standards and guidelines that call for maintaining established development patterns and respecting or subordinating to the National Register Green Hotel Apartments and Castle Green. This parcel is part of the National Register listing, so it must follow these standards. However, we find the SCEA responses to be incomplete and inadequate to these concerns.
Now at 84 units & 7 floors (+4 underground), most reasons the previous 64-unit project EIR was never certified (impacts of traffic, aesthetics, vibrations, CO2 concerns, and mostly historic preservation) have been heightened.
SCEA is circumventing increased impacts - acknowledged or not - and rushing this project around the Design Commission to avoid their critical review, directly to the City Council. Politely speaking, this is plain folly, as they are the most appropriate body to continue to lead this process.
01/24/2022
Item 13
Mike Salazar, Architect, for the Castle Green Homeowners Association SCEA Review avoids the 11 "Areas of Known Controversy" identified in the 2014-5 EIR, as well as 9 additional areas brought forth by the community. In fact, SCEA allows no aesthetic concerns to be considered impactful, relegates traffic impacts to mere inconveniences, and wrongly dismisses many historic preservation failures.
But did you know that the EIR and SCEA failed to analyze a key roadway segment along Fair Oaks Avenue - an unprecedented omission - as well as to ignore the two adjacent, non-signaled intersections flanking the Project on Dayton Street (at Fair Oaks and at Raymond avenues? These omissions wrongly lead the EIR and SCEA to dismiss these traffic impacts.
During the failed EIR process, the City stated that the (smaller) 64-unit project would lead to significant negative impacts to Dayton Street, yet now you are expected to approve a SCEA project with even worse traffic conditions to come with 84 units bringing a 700% increase in daily trips.
As a cautionary tale, this Council only has to look back a decade or so and revisit the city's stinging rebuke in the 2010 IDS/Playhouse District project. Having approved an oversized, over-impactful project, a judge ruled against the city, requiring a proper Historic evaluation, a revised-EIR using a new reduced-size Alternative, and incorporating an impacted crosswalk design as part of the project (instead of 'mitigation' after construction).
The similarities abound between the IDS loss and this SCEA review: 1) While a Historic Report exists, it is inadequate for not following the Secretary of Interior Standards and local guidelines for Old Pasadena. 2) Neither the failed EIR or SCEA studied two impacted intersections without signal lights (Dayton at Fair Oaks & Dayton at Raymond) that will face a daily 6-700% increase in vehicle trips. Both intersections currently are unsafe for pedestrians and bikers, and are at best difficult for vehicles. IDS only failed to incorporate one crosswalk. No mitigation is requested or included in the SCEA or past EIR for traffic that will overload Dayton and these unstudied intersections. 3) Alternatives in the uncertified EIR largely did not meet CEQA requirement to quantifiably reduce significant traffic impacts and address preservation concerns, acknowledged or not. SCEA doesn't even take Alternatives into account. That's three strikes against this SCEA Review.
Now this City Council is expected to go out on a long, thin limb, having to certify an inadequate SCEA review made more suspect given the failed EIR for a smaller project. I have reviewed the SCEA responses, and like the rejected EIR, find that the SCEA responses, (especially regarding historic preservation but also about trees, CO2, traffic and other areas noted herewith and in all public comments) remain inadequate.
I hope that this letter sheds light on this SCEA's inadequacies, and that this Council denies approvals and agrees that this complex and sensitive project's review authority is best handled directly by the Design Commission. For if the SCEA is approved, we fear it will handcuff the Design Commission from performing a necessary full project review. This site is clearly the most historic block in Old Pasadena, on par with our Civic Center. 12 years of failed projects should raise a big red flag of caution to SCEA approval.
We are counting on this City Council not to certify this inadequate SCEA review, and return this project to the Design Commission. However, if there is the least bit of uncertainty among the Council regarding approval or denial, we ask that this City Council then continue this rushed and inadequate SCEA review to a future date, providing a proper time frame for real community review and input.
Mike Salazar, Architect for the Castle Green Homeowners Association Pasadena Native, former Pasadena Design Commissioner, former Pasadena Community Development Committee member, former Pasadena Library Commissioner, and former Castle Green resident/owner. Current representative of the Castle Green Homeowners Association as the chair of the Castle Green Architecture & Design Committee.
CC: David Reyes, Director of Planning. Pasadena Design Commission.
Iraheta, Alba
From: Erika Foy < >
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Jomsky, Mark; PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cc: Wilson, Andy; Gordo, Victor
Subject: Erika Foy Public Comment 86 South Fair Oaks Ave CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Good afternoon Council and Mayor-
I took some time today to dig through the 1000's of pages on this project (shocking) and I finally found the traffic report for 86 South Fair Oaks. I wanted to simply point out some issues I thought you should be made aware.
The trip generation rate for the project is 866, but for some reason a different number of 546 is used to calculate the VI in the CEQA study. I think this is really important because the VI is being calculated at 2.8, yet our threshold is 2.8. Seems to me this needs close inspecting and the model they have used to calculate the VT should be made public and this council needs to question why there are two different numbers. 01/24/2022
Item 13
1 I rip Generation Kates (proposed)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Proposed Use Land Use Code Amount Units Measure
Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment 221฿ 87 DU 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 Work-Live" San Diego 5,236 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 Retail San Diego 4,218 SF 1000 40.00 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.80 1.80 3.60 High-Tumover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,974 SF 1000 112.18 5.47 4.47 9.94 6.06 3.71 9.77 Volumes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Proposed Use Daily In Out Total Out Total
Multi-Family Mid-Rise Apartment 473 23 31 23 15 38
Work-Live* 105 1 3 5/
Retail 169 2 5 8 15
High-Tumover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 221 11 9 20 12 19
Total Project Trips 968 24 35 59 48 35 82
Intemal Trip Capture 0% 0 0
Transit Trips (Residential) 5% 24 • -N 1 •IN N
Pass-By Trips (Restaurant + Retail) 20% 78 5
Net Project Vehicle Trips 866 21 32 52 43 31
* Work-live units uses retail with 50% walk in reductions.
Net total (proposed minus existing trips) 866 21 32 52 43 31 73 Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary
Significant Incremental
change Significant
Transportation Performance Metrics Impact Cap (existing + (existing) Impact?
project)
VMT per Capita >22.6 16.2 No
VT per Capita >2.8 2.8 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 31.7 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.7 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.88 3.88 No
The TDF model calculation results determined that the project does not exceed any adopted CEQA thresholds of significance.
2 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue
VMT/Cap and VT/Cap Summary
Daily Trips Internal External Pop 136,116
Internal 351,155 336,010 Emp 111,367
External 336,010 491,145 Ext. Factor 50%
FINAL REDUCED DAILY VMT BY SPEED BIN EMFAC
Speed Internal External Regional Total INPUT
109 1,740 1,850 0%
10 673 135 14,356 15,165
15 4,135 1,353 45,870 51,358
20 16,456 4,470 75,182 96,108
25 98,066 12,630 150,194 260,890 5%
30 489,110 61,376 275,101 825,587 15%
35 822,415 139,323 320,207 1,281,946 23%
202,071 55,894 225,464 483,429 9%
45 136,021 104,933 169,393 410,347
50 112,508 2,075 211,736 326,319
55 95,581 7,973 229,296 332,851
119,991 15,079 238,105 373,175
65 323,603 20,896 181,045 525,544
70 3,633 529,037 532,671 11%
75 77,279 77,279
80 85
SUM 2,424,374 426,138 2,744,006 5,594,519 100%
TOTAL RAW DAILY SUMMARY
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,424,374 852,275 5,488,013 8,764,663 35.4
VT 351,155 672.020 1,023,175 4.1
Length 6.9 1.3 8.6
REDUCED DAILY SUMMARY
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,424,374 426,138 2,744,006 5,594,519 | 22.6
VT 351,155 336,010 687,165 2.8
Length 6.9 1.3 8.1
Pop VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,116 111,367 5,594,519 687,165
I would also like to point out a few issues in the Outside CEQA study. As you will see below, the city is using a traffic study from September 2018 at one of our busiest intersections. I would imagine our city would have newer data since we are constantly having to monitor the train and the back up at Del Mar and Fair Oaks. You will see below that even in 2018, we had a falling turn at NBL. This project will cause the intersection turn to fail even further. Please note again, the data for this project was collected in 2019. What I find most shocking though, is that our city is using Synchro 6 software which is over 20 years old. Imagine the changes in technology form 20 years ago! I didn't even have a cell phone 20 years ago. The city recently hired traffic engineering consultants who say we should be using updated software which would be Synchro 11. This newest software available would be much more accurate in keeping pedestrians and motorists safe. When we are dealing with an intersection of such importance, we must be sure we are not stuck in the "pre technology" stage which is what this is doing. Imagine if we were still using Apple Power Mac's from 2003 for technology? This is the kind of system our traffic department is using to calculate our streets. Something must change. 86 South Fair Oaks Ave
Existing AM 9/25/2018
→ 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NB IBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations 17-
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3260 1805 3570 1805 3516 1805 3582 Fit Permitted 0.20 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.13 1,00 0.31 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 374 3260 241 3570 251 3516 590
Volume (ph) 29 507 354 113 766 39 229 525 61
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.81 0.78 0.70 0.92 0.79 0.80 0.95 0.80 77 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 626 454฿ 161 833 49 286 553 76
RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 8
140 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 940 161 878 286 617
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 37 45
Turn Type pm+pl pm+pi pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 27.6 41.4 32.8
Effective Green, g (s) 32.1 27.5 41.3 32.7 i iD
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.46 0.36 0.39
Clearance Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 996 281 1297 123 299
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.29 c0.06 0.25 0.18 .02 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.20 C0.44 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.94 0.57 0.68 1.25 0.50 0.31 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 19.7 30.5 19.4 24.2 23.1 18.1 26.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.89 1.44 .00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 17.9 2.2 2.7
Delay (s) 20.0 48.4 38.8 37.4 16G.T 18.6
Level of Service D
Approach Delay (s) 47.4฿ 37.6 29
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 45.5 HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 6 Report 525: Del Mar & Fair Oaks Page 1
City of Pasadena
86 South Fair Oaks Ave
Existing + Project AM 4/30/2019
+
→
Movement EBL EB' EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3260 1805 3570 1805 3517 1805
Fit Permitted 0.20 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.31
Satd. Flow (perm) 374 3260 241 3570 243 3517 586
Volume (vph) 31 507 354 113 766 39 229 528 61 72 26
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.81 0.78 0.70 0.92 0.79 0.80 0.95 0.80 0.77 0.92 0.70 Adj. Flow (vph) 40 626 454 161 833 49 286 556 76 94 850 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 140 4 0 12 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 940 161 878 286 620 884
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 67 37 45 42
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 6 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 27.6 41.4 32.8 37.5 29.7 33.9 27.9 Effective Green, g (s) 32.1 27.5 41.3 32.7 38.5 31.5 34.9 29.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.31 0.46 0.36 0.43 0.35 0.39 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.2 5.8 3.2 5.8
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 996 281 1297 225 1231 298 1181
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.29 c0.06 0.25 c0.10 0.18 0.02 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.20 c0.44 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.94 0.57 0.68 1.27 0.50 0.32 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 19.7 30.5 19.4 24.2 20.8 23.1 18.1 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.89 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 17.9 2.2 2.7 152.1 1.5 0.4 4.4 Delay (s) 20.1 48.4 38.7 37.5 172.9 24.6 18.6 31.2
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s) 47.4 37.7 70.8 30.0
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 46.0 HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 6 Report 525: Del Mar & Fair Oaks Page 1
City of Pasadena
Lastly, I would like to point out that the play area at Central Park is one of the most popular for kids and families in Pasadena. How is the pedestrian safety of the neighboring families who enjoy this park being evaluated in the CEQA study? How do they access the park safely especially when we have intersections which are not properly being evaluated and mitigated? How do families access the park, and how was this studied in the 1000 page document? Seem to me more work needs to be done to ensure the safety of our pedestrians and motorists. Failing intersections must be closely monitored especially at such dangerous intersections like South Fair Oaks and Del Mar. I would imagine we have a very serious cumulative traffic issue on our hands that has not been thoroughly explored.
Thank you, Erika Foy
5 Iraheta, Alba
From: Tina Lenert <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:12 P
To: ublicComment-AutoRespons
Cc: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...
Dear City of Pasadena,
As a long-time resident of Pasadena I have observed the new-builds dwarfing many of the historic structures that define the charm of Old Pasadena."
My question is, can we at least keep one block of Old Pasadena IN Old Pasadena? Below is a clear view of Castle Green from Fair Oaks Avenue as one approaches Colorado Boulevard. Do we really want to tear down those trees and conceal this historic, iconic structure? By the way, I find it quite offensive that the new behemoth at the corner of Fair Oaks and Holly has a sign that says "Old Pasadena." It's one of those "You're not there but you can sorta see it from there." Respectully,
Tina Lenert Caveney
1 01/24/2022
Item 13
L ESTATE
DESIGNED